On 16.06.2010 07:40, Adam Barth wrote:
> (Apologies if I've missed the deadline for submitting a Change
> Proposal for this issue. Roy only recently explained this issue to
> me.)
> ...
I sympathize with the direction of this CP.
However, if we do it, the text that gets inserted will need to be tuned
so that we don't end with the same objections that we got last time
(such as pretending that there is something "broken" in RFC 3986/3987 --
they simply operate on a different level).
Best regards, Julian